Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Wildthing61476

Statement
In my time here at Wikipedia, I have discovered that a lot of the heated discussions, arguments, and personal attacks are handled, and resolved through the work of the Arbitration Committee. I feel that I would be a good addition to this committee, as I have dealt with issues I have seen with even-handedness, keeping my cool when accusations are thrown my way, and my ability to listen to all sides before passing judgment. I welcome any and all questions, and I will do my best to answer them in a timely fashion. I also respect the opinion of my fellow Wikipedians as to my worth in an ArbCom position, be it good or bad.

Questions

Support

 * 1) Moral support semper fi —  Moe  05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Moral support - you mean well. --Elar  a girl  Talk 19:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral Support.  Nish kid 64  01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - Users are one of the main pillars that keep wikipedia running, growing and surviving; by managing a lot users wikipedia sure can grow; sometimes users can auctually be more important than articles. By looking at both sides of an argument and argumenting wisely, wikipedia sure will improve. --TomasBat 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As much as I hate to remove one of your supports, this user did not sign up before October 1, so they are ineligible to participate. -Amarkov blahedits 01:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, inexperience isn't much of an argument in my view. If one has never been to the Moon before, should one not go? Mallanox 00:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Fantailfan 03:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --  t A  LL I  N c  21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose, too new and inexperienced as a Wikipedian for this particular senior role. --M P er el ( talk 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --ElKevbo 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Not enough experience yet. --Coredesat  00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) I applaud the boldness, though. If I were in your position, I would never even think of running. -Amarkov blahedits 00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Jaranda wat's sup 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, as per Coredesat, above. Jd2718 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) - crz crztalk 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) While your role as editor is laudable, I'm not sure that you'll make a good ArbCom member. I interpret your candidate statement as a major reliance on ArbCom to resolve disputes, when many disputes are actually resolved through other, less formal channels. --210physicq  (c ) 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Tito xd (?!?) 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Angus McLellan  (Talk) 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) If I wasn't personally opposed to moral support, I'd give the candidate one. The candidate, however, didn't answer a lot of questions. theProject 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Hello32020 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Avi 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Awolf002 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) SuperMachine 01:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Too new. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Rebecca 03:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) —Mi ra  03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) KPbIC 03:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Per not enough experience - try mediation, Esperanza, or such for a year first, if I may suggest. I am looking forward to supporting you next time if this happens...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Ter e nce Ong 04:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Mailer Diablo 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Inexperience. Xoloz 04:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Dylan Lake 06:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Nufy8 07:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) – Chacor 09:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Strong oppose. Didn't even reply to the questions posted. --Sugaar 11:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) cj | talk 11:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) -- May the Force be with you!  Shr e shth91 13:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose because they never answered my questions. Anomo 13:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 32)  Shyam  ( T / C ) 14:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) --Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  14:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose Andrew Lenahan - St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT> 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) <font style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik <font style="color:#888888;">Talk 16:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Like the guts shown running at this stage... but way too inexperienced for arbcom duties.  <font color="#FA8605">ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 16:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) --Pjacobi 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Brian Boru is awesome 20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Not much in the way of a statement or answers to questions... --Hyperbole 21:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Michael Snow 23:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose. Not representing WP, really. Lincher 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Moral support is one thing, but voting support when you really mean oppose is a terrible thing to do. --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys  18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) I would have a hard time supporting someone who has only been here half a month, and the lack of answers to a lot of questions seems to reinforce the perception that Wildthing is too new and inexperienced to function on the arbcomm. So, oppose.  Guettarda 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) I don't think the candidate is wholly unqualified, but the absence of the answers to many questions further complicates one's not having very much on which to base support here; as Cyde, et al., I eschew moral supports, but this can, I think, be construed as an oppose w/moral support. Joe 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) No. —Doug Bell talk 01:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose one of those AFD-centric accounts, and didn't answer questions Dragomiloff 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose. Inexperience. --Merlinme 17:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Oppose lack of experience, lack of answers to questions GRBerry 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Sarah Ewart 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose. In particular, some essential question sets left unanswered. As much as I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, you do need to demonstrate a good knowledge of policy to achieve this position. —Lantoka ( talk 03:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) oppose Pete.Hurd 03:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Oppose. Unanswered questions and lack of experience. --Danaman5 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Oppose. —FlashSheridan 21:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Oppose, I feel adminship is a minimum requirement for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Oppose Michael 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Oppose Although a good person, much too inexperienced for this job. Anom8trw8 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Oppose. A.M.962 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Oppose lack of experience.  Lost Kiwi (talk)21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Oppose doesn't understand issues surrounding scientific controversies. --ScienceApologist 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Oppose. the wub "?!"  20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Oppose. Inexperience, not responding to new questions. --Aude (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 64) Oppose Krich (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Oppose by default. (Did not provide example for good work. I'm sorry, I had planned to do some more research today which was prevented by an emergency in our area.) &mdash; Sebastian 04:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 66) Inexperience, sorry. &mdash;Xyrael / 09:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 67) Oppose per almost everyone one above, experience is golden. — <font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"> xaosflux  <font color="#00FF00">Talk 16:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 68) Oppose Kiwidude 22:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 69) Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)